Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?
Probably nothing.
[snip]
Even after he became one of the most famous and controversial men of his time, he was always content to let surrogates argue his case.
[snip]
From his university days Darwin would have been familiar with the case for intelligent design. In 1802, nearly 30 years before the Beagle set sail, William Paley, the reigning theologian of his time, published "Natural Theology" in which he laid out his "Argument from Design."
Paley contended that if a person discovered a pocket watch while taking a ramble across the heath, he would know instantly that this was a designed object, not something that had evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be a designer. Similarly, man -- a marvelously intricate piece of biological machinery -- also must have been designed by "Someone."
If this has a familiar ring to it, it's because this is pretty much the same argument that intelligent design advocates use today.
[snip]
The first great public debate took place on June 30, 1860, in a packed hall at Oxford University's new Zoological Museum.
Samuel Wilberforce, the learned bishop of Oxford, was champing at the bit to demolish Darwin's notion that man descended from apes. As always, Darwin stayed home. His case was argued by one of his admirers, biologist Thomas Huxley.
Wilberforce drew whoops of glee from the gallery when he sarcastically asked Huxley if he claimed descent from the apes on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley retorted that he would rather be related to an ape than to a man of the church who used half-truths and nonsense to attack science.
The argument continues unabated ...
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
But I wonder how Calvin would stack up on the stinkOmeter against Oliver Cromwell.
Butcha gotta be careful....
Habakkuk 2:15
"Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies.
I agree with you here.
But what of the passages that are not OBVIOUS metaphors?
This is the point of contention.
Does one's belief in E color the way the look a Scripture, or ones belief in Scripture influence the way they look at the data from the Earth?
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I wasn't tizzied!
In a word, yes.
I agree with you and believe in Adam and Eve. I'm not going to debate things about them though. What I learned about evolution convinced me even more that there was someone behind it all. With the laws and organization that things do have, how can we conclude differently?
I do believe that science is man's way of explaining God's processes. I don't have much conflict with it. Without science we wouldn't have most of the things we enjoy in life now.
Entirely hypothetical, because I never see Jews do that. Or Muslims. Or Scientologists or Buddhists or Hindus. Funny, huh?
Maybe this is result of NOT living according to what their 'holy writings' set out for them, but their own 'interpretation' of them.
Other than COPYING what is on the screen, the ONLY 'extra' HTML you got was one red word!
As Junner would say, "Take yer med's, Honey. Things will get better."
I laughed too!
Did yours get yanked out, TOO?
Holy cats! These evolution threads keep going and going and going...
But are they evolving, or are some folks (no names) just copying and pasting previous postings?
They were at LEAST still HUMAN!!
Well, wait a minute....
There WAS Uncle Joe........
I wish I knew. It seems so seldom these days.
But are they evolving, or are some folks (no names) just copying and pasting previous postings?
Probably a lot of both.
Or is it opinion?
Do you have any data, evidence to show us?
Slime mold...
MOVEon.org comes to mind!
"A double-minded man...."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.